Protesters could be hindering conclusion.

[unsaid]

Caylee was not in a dressing room at Target.:furious:

Right, but she was writing checks for cash...either buying a new cell phone or paying off an existing one...things that could be made to appear that she was stealing to gain resources to help her find Caylee.

I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying there are many ways to look at the evidence and the defense is going to use the way that puts Casey in the best light.

 

[yolorado]

I don't think that any one here would disagree with that - but I also don't think that has anything to do with where we are today with this case. IMO that's a tactic to get the focus off Casey.

Yeah, why would anyone want to do that?:croc:
It's kinda the, 'Oh someone else did it too' defense. But even if the police are lying, and I'd bet the moon they aren't, Caylee is still missing and her mom is still not helping find her. Still. How many days now? Weeks. Months. Eventually, it will be years. And KC will still be the one who didn't report Caylee missing, who lied about where she left her, and with whom, and probably still will have never offered any truthful, verifiable info to help find her child. She'll be in prison then, put there essentially by HER lies, no matter who else someplace around the world might have lied about something during the history of man.
:liar::snake:rnament::cow:

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Right, but she was writing checks for cash...either buying a new cell phone or paying off an existing one...things that could be made to appear that she was stealing to gain resources to help her find Caylee.

I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying there are many ways to look at the evidence and the defense is going to use the way that puts Casey in the best light.

Well that light bulb is gonna break if they get into the OLD news saga of Casey's theft from the stroke victim elderly assisted living parent...

 

[unsaid]

Forget the evidence that LE has released publicly - that is just the icing on the cake, so to speak.

What has convinced most people that Casey is guilty of doing something wrong, or at least covering it up are HER OWN WORDS AND ACTIONS.

I.E. - not telling ANYBODY close to her that her daughter was missing, and coming up with a cockamamie story that nobody believes to explain it. Listening to her tell why? You can tell she's lying.

Not actively doing anything to find her daughter - instead out promoting parties (proof was online, many people here have seen it) partying it up (proof also was online) hanging out and chatting up her friends as if nothing happened.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture - if you have an open mind.

Look at EVERYTHING SHE DID OR SAID after her daughter went missing (plus the week before - the huge fight with family members) and it paints a very disturbing picture of a girl that did not care that her daughter was missing, plus did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to find her.

Throw in the physical evidence, and the picture is very clear to most people.

What people feel happened and what people KNOW happened are two different things. Most people FEEL Casey's guilty of harming Caylee but do we KNOW that? No. The same goes with people who think Casey's innocent or whether Caylee is dead or alive. Feelings aren't enough, we have to work with what we know. I'm eager for evidence on either side. I'd love to jump to a conclusion and stay there but that's just not me. Some indisputable facts would be nice.

 

[unsaid]

Well that light bulb is gonna break if they get into the OLD news saga of Casey's theft from the stroke victim elderly assisted living parent...

Yeah, that kinda proves she's just a thief. LOL

 

[MiraclesHappen]

They don't have to use specific anecdotes in court but a psychologist would be able to attest to the type of behavior the poster was describing in their anecdotes. I appreciate people grounding their posts in reality through personal experiences.

I don't quite understand that last remark....

 

[yolorado]

Forget the evidence that LE has released publicly - that is just the icing on the cake, so to speak.

What has convinced most people that Casey is guilty of doing something wrong, or at least covering it up are HER OWN WORDS AND ACTIONS.

I.E. - not telling ANYBODY close to her that her daughter was missing, and coming up with a cockamamie story that nobody believes to explain it. Listening to her tell why? You can tell she's lying.

Not actively doing anything to find her daughter - instead out promoting parties (proof was online, many people here have seen it) partying it up (proof also was online) hanging out and chatting up her friends as if nothing happened.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture - if you have an open mind.

Look at EVERYTHING SHE DID OR SAID after her daughter went missing (plus the week before - the huge fight with family members) and it paints a very disturbing picture of a girl that did not care that her daughter was missing, plus did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to find her.

Throw in the physical evidence, and the picture is very clear to most people.

Exactly, well put. If LE has but the situation which existed at the time they were called by Cindy, NOTHING but KC's written and oral statements and investigative proof they aren't true, if Caylee is still missing at the time of the trial, that situation, those statements and that fact alone will put her in jail for a good, long time.

 

[unsaid]

I don't quite understand that last remark....

You asked what anecdotal evidence had to do with a criminal case, I believe. I was just saying that a psychologist could testify that the type of behavior the poster was describing in the anecdote exists. I was just defending the use of the anecdotes by implying that they are similar to a psychologists testimony in court, ie "other's have exhibited this behavior under these circumstances...and it means".

 

[Jolynna]

NOT true about what he/she said. I said LE can and do lie, never said they ALWAYS lie and NEVER said Casey is innocent. I am being lied about but let him/her put words in mouth. It shows how "logical" he/she is.

I agree that LE can and does lie. But...

LE is not going to pursue their case in a way that is publically going to humiliate the state or put the prosecutors at a disadvantage when the case goes to trial.

The ONLY reason they would tell the media that evidence indicates Caylee is deceased and was in Casey's trunk is because they think it is true. That much I've believed from the get-go they have and will easily prove.

Baez wouldn't be giving Casey hours and hours of daily lawyering unless there was a big trial with lots of publicity and exposure coming up either. He isn't expecting the big public trial because the state doesn't have evidence. I think he has heard through the gravevine just the opposite.

IMO, MOO

 

[MiraclesHappen]

What people feel happened and what people KNOW happened are two different things. Most people FEEL Casey's guilty of harming Caylee but do we KNOW that? No. The same goes with people who think Casey's innocent or whether Caylee is dead or alive. Feelings aren't enough, we have to work with what we know. I'm eager for evidence on either side. I'd love to jump to a conclusion and stay there but that's just not me. Some indisputable facts would be nice.

Most criminal trials are not immersed in or surrounded by indisputable facts.

Almost anything will be open to dispute inside a courtroom. Realistically, this will play out in a courtroom where a jury will decide what is or isn't an indisputable fact.

 

[Muzikman]

What people feel happened and what people KNOW happened are two different things. Most people FEEL Casey's guilty of harming Caylee but do we KNOW that? No. The same goes with people who think Casey's innocent or whether Caylee is dead or alive. Feelings aren't enough, we have to work with what we know. I'm eager for evidence on either side. I'd love to jump to a conclusion and stay there but that's just not me. Some indisputable facts would be nice.

I don't know that Casey actually harmed Caylee herself - that's not the point I was making.

What is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to *most* people is that whatever happened to Caylee, CASEY IS COVERING IT UP. Or *desperately* attempting to, anyway.

I'd say that there are pretty indisputable facts, with dates, coming from Casey herself, to support that conclusion.

And why cover it up, if you REALLY want her found? Infer from that what you will.

 

[unsaid]

Most criminal trials are not immersed in or surrounded by indisputable facts.

Almost anything will be open to dispute inside a courtroom. Realistically, this will play out in a courtroom where a jury will decide what is or isn't an indisputable fact.

I hear you. All facts are disputable. I guess I just need some facts that strike ME as indisputable! lol

 

[Seranade]

You asked what anecdotal evidence had to do with a criminal case, I believe. I was just saying that a psychologist could testify that the type of behavior the poster was describing in the anecdote exists. I was just defending the use of the anecdotes by implying that they are similar to a psychologists testimony in court, ie "other's have exhibited this behavior under these circumstances...and it means".

As long as an "anecdote" is a first person witness account in court it is not hearsay and is taken seriously by a court as long as there is no evidence to discredit it.

However, when I mentioned "anecdote" and said it didn't mean squat, I was referring to it's value on a message board. People can a do lie about personal experiences on message boards to lend their points of view more weight or credibility. It really doesn't, because as I said it could be a lie and there is no way for fellow board members to test it's veracity.

 

[unsaid]

What is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to *most* people is that whatever happened to Caylee, CASEY IS COVERING IT UP. Or *desperately* attempting to, anyway.

Yes, all her lying proves that she was covering it up. I agree with that. Like you said, Casey's actions are what have harmed Casey the most. Totally true.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

You asked what anecdotal evidence had to do with a criminal case, I believe. I was just saying that a psychologist could testify that the type of behavior the poster was describing in the anecdote exists. I was just defending the use of the anecdotes by implying that they are similar to a psychologists testimony in court, ie "other's have exhibited this behavior under these circumstances...and it means".

That is not what I asked.

Humbly, I remind you I asked:

"What the heck is anecdotal evidence in criminal law"


Secondly, attempting to profile someone as having or not having a propensity to commit or not commit any specific crime is a huge area in evidenciary academia and is generally considered inadmissable in a trial like this.

If you let that kind of evidence in, each side will parade in 1000 witnesses to testify she is (or isn't) the type to commit a certain crime.


Thirdly, Orlando LE knows they are in the national spotlight and would not be so idiotic as to fib their releases to the public. They generally value their employment.

 

[unsaid]

As long as an "anecdote" is a first person witness account in court it is not hearsay and is taken seriously by a court as long as there is no evidence to discredit it.

However, when I mentioned "anecdote" and said it didn't mean squat, I was referring to it's value on a message board. People can a do lie about personal experiences on message boards to lend their points of view more weight or credibility. It really doesn't, because as I said it could be a lie and there is no way for fellow board members to test it's veracity.

Cool...I gotcha!

 

[unsaid]

Thirdly, Orlando LE knows they are in the national spotlight and would not be so idiotic as to fib their releases to the public. They generally value their employment.

I interpreted your post incorrectly and responded according to my interpretation.

I don't think LE is lying. I think they aren't telling the whole story and with good reason.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

As long as an "anecdote" is a first person witness account in court it is not hearsay and is taken seriously by a court as long as there is no evidence to discredit it.

A jury has the absolute right to give 100 per cent credibility to a witness even though 100 witnesses give evidence to discredit that witness. Honest.

 

[yolorado]

Yeah, that kinda proves she's just a thief. LOL

Yes, and which will very likely lead to a conviction sooner or later and KC being a convicted criminal, established as someone capable of committing crime. Stone by stone, construction begins........ Soon the demonstrators can move to the state pen if they want to where they can carry signs like they sometimes to do and high-five each other ala Team Anthony!
:behindbar

Anyone know if FL has habitual criminal statutes? Three strikes you're out laws? In my state, if they get someone for three felonies, they can put them away for life under certain circumstances.
ut em up::smiliescale:

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Yes, and which will very likely lead to a conviction sooner or later and KC being a convicted criminal, established as someone capable of committing crime. Stone by stone, construction begins........ Soon the demonstrators can move to the state pen if they want to where they can carry signs like they sometimes to do and high-five each other ala Team Anthony!
:behindbar

Anyone know if FL has habitual criminal statutes? Three strikes you're out laws? In my state, if they get someone for three felonies, they can put them away for life under certain circumstances.
ut em up::smiliescale:

Yeah but the crime will be charged as having an elderly victim so she's going to be screwed if that one with the stroke victim victim is prosecuted.

Florida ups the ante for elderly, disabled, and child victims.

CLEAN SWEEP by Casey.....